I can hear you now: “thanks for the earth-shattering thoughts”.

I’m with you but here is the thing. We often talk about distraction and technology from this standpoint: “X student will be distracted by Y while using Z”. In other words, the concern is whether each student will be distracted by the device he or she is using.

However, our students enlightened me about perhaps a greater concern: “X student is distract by Y student because s/he is off-task on Z app/site”. In other words, the concern is how the actions of other students on devices leads to distraction of those trying to be on task.

And it is a legit issue.

Without technology, distracted or disengaged students are often not an issue for other students (unless behavioral issues emerge). The distraction is no doubt visible but it a spaced out, drooling, or sleeping peer just isn’t appealing. But gaming, social networking, and video browsing are appealing to students.

I have no answer for how to address this distraction caused by others. Thoughts?

“If you can crack the problem of engagement– not just ‘are you paying attention?’, but ‘are you fascinated by this?’– if you can crack engagement in deep learning then you’ve cracked 21st century schooling.” Mike Berrill

So how are we cracking the problem of engagement? How are we moving engagement as compliance, engagement as active, or engagement as paying attention to engagement of the heart and mind? How are we creating sparks, igniting passions, and building connections?

Questions that should drive us because it is here we will come to know engagement that fulfills the purpose of education: ignite and support the passions of learners while developing the skills, habits of mind, experiences, and dispositions that foster the whole child and qualities of genius.

And that is the problem with the Technology Adoption Lifecycle. It reinforces this belief that there is a general category for educators that each fits into nicely when it isn’t about lifelong labels for people.

I’m not convinced that there are innovators and early adopters or late majority users or laggards as much as we place people into categories for our own sense of comfort.

And we then find ourselves leveraging these categories in our selection of pilot members, new ideas, and new experiences. We justify our actions by saying let’s invest in those that care. We find it easier and more likely to achieve “success” when we give it to those we’ve defined as innovative.

But is this really success? Is this an honest picture? Do we ever question if our placement of people into these categories in a holistic way that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy? Do we ever provide opportunities for those we’ve long labeled to create a new one?

Next time someone tosses out these terms or you toss these out, give pause and ask whether you are using this as a label system or if you are using it to understand how to strategically approach a new technology? The latter is more aligned to the value of the theory and it by no means places the same people into the same categories.

Publishers update students’ books almost instantly with the latest events or research. Schools are increasingly looking to the hand-held tablets as a way to sustain students’ interest, reward their achievements and, in some cases, actually keep per-student costs down. (Elliott)

Beyond the fiscal responsibility piece, the other items are problematic:

• buying any technology tool to sustain interest is a problem. This isn’t how you reach engagement beyond a superficial, temporal reality
• using technology to reward classroom achievement fails to grasp the importance of it for all students to achieve
• updating textbooks instantly by the publisher continues to put the ownership of content in the wrong hands

I’m reminded of the thoughts from our panelist this past week at the Illinois Google Summit: a superintendent, principal, chief technology officer, and technology integrationist/teacher. Three out of four of the panelist saw very little interest in digital textbooks when looking at learning and where the classroom shifts need to occur for engagement.

In fact, the idea of the Internet as the Best Textbook was alive and well.

Only the chief technology officer bought into the  idea of digital textbooks as important for learning. However, he saw these as a financial mechanism for getting devices into the hands of students more than the textbooks as key to learning.

It doesn’t get any better from there:

“We must use technology to empower teachers and improve the way students learn,” said Joel Klein, a former New York City schools’ chief who now leads News Corp.’s education tablet program. “At its best, education technology will change the face of education by helping teachers manage the classroom and personalize instruction.”

Empower teachers? Manage the Classroom?  These seem to really miss the point and fail to see the device as a catalyst for change.

While I want teachers to be empowered, the ultimate goal is for every learner in the classroom to be empowered. In fact, I see many classrooms full of empowered teachers (using the article’s definition of empowered) with students disempowered: smart boards, document cameras, a computer, and more while the students have nothing or told to keep what they have put away (school policy often over teacher belief).

I’ve said it before – this is the wrong focus!

And then the misnomer that continues to lead to implementation problems in schools:

Students, unlike some of their parents, aren’t blinking.”The biggest challenge is that they’re growing up as digital natives, but when they get to the school door, they have to leave that at the door,” said Scott Kinney, who trains teachers on how to use Discovery Education’s products, which work on various platforms.

Not all students are walking into classrooms craving technology. I can tell you from personal experience both locally and beyond that there are just as many if not more students that don’t want these devices for learning. Yes, they like the social networking, photos, and “selfies”. However, don’t confuse this for all students craving technology for learning and engagement.

We do a great disservice to educators and schools when we continue to push these beliefs that if you build it with technology, the students will suddenly transform.

In fact, students can be the greatest resistors for shifting the classroom. When we shift the classroom to one where students need to acquire instead of receive their education, this empowerment is more challenging and more work. It is not the path of least resistance.

For some students that have learned to play the game (compliant engagement), this is frustrating. For some students that have opted to not engage, this is frustrating because it is a much more difficult option.

I’m just not excited about this “new digital bookcase, where traditional ink-and-paper textbooks have given way to [devices] and book bags are becoming lighter”. Happy for the backs of student, yes. Excited for shifts to the learning environment, no – not with those things as the gauge.

Time to think deeper (beyond the latest headline from a non-practitioners)!

@ryanbretag You’re invited to join our #glassexplorers program. Woohoo! Make sure to follow us – we’ll DM in the coming weeks.

— Project Glass (@projectglass) March 29, 2013

I can’t wait to immerse this into the school environment to explore the device as a catalyst for change. My head is spinning with ideas!

I had many snarky responses such as…

• maybe we should go with Apple after they pulled the rug out from under many schools that relied upon the standard Macbook and its sub 1,000.00 price tag
• maybe we should go with Apple after they dropped MobileMe, a product many teachers used and loved
• maybe we should go with Apple after they dropped software and hardware that programs like SoundTrack Pro, Xservers, and Final Cut Server
• But wait, Google dropped such CRITICAL services like Spencer mentioned: Wave (really?), Knol (ugh), and Notebook (probably in part reinvented through Keep).
• Heck, I think the best thing to do is stick with Microsoft because you’ll live and die with some of the greatest legacy software and hardware out there. Trust me – they’ll ride a dead horse for decades and isn’t that what we want for kids?

But these responses aren’t modeling “Willing to be Disturbed”…

Spenser is right that these moves can be maddening. I felt it deeply when they announced Appointments were going away.

But I know that Google’s mindset is one of constant change. This is difficult for many especially schools where the desired reality (despite vision rhetoric) is stability and slow, methodical change:

Stable Ground –> Review Change  --> Committee the Change  –> Review Committee’s Review of Change –> Pilot Change  –> Review Pilot’s Review of Change –> Reflect upon Change Impact –> Send Recommendation for Change to  Additional Administrative Bodies –> Question Change –> Decide Change is Okay –> Provide Training and PD before Anyone Can Go Through the Change –> Find that Stable Ground Again for as Long as Possible

Know Google Before Investing in Google

Spenser is focused on the tools and a fear that Google is going to change or remove them. The answer is yes! They will. And guess what, they are transparent about it through their organizational mindset. It is up to schools to understand the philosophy before Goin’ Google.

The real question schools should be asking is not whether or not we can trust Google. As I said, they don’t hide their approach like some companies. They should be asking whether they believe in Google’s philosophy.

In other words, schools need to decide which organizational theory they desire:

1. A Landing Organization with a Fixed Mindset
2. A Bounding Organization with a Growth Mindset

You see, I choose bounding.

And I’ve seen our school choose bounding. With that choice, we have become more innovative, greater risk-takers, and more alive. Our conversations are different. Our openness to ideas and change is different. Roadblocks are embraced challenges. Change is feared much less. And perhaps most importantly, people are empowered to a greater degree with innovation without restriction is in place.

Buy the Philosophy Not the Tools When Going Google

This is what schools get when they “go with Google” if they see it as more than a list of tools.

This is difficult. We think we’re buying Drive, Sites, Gmail, etc. But this isn’t the case. No! We’re buying collaboration, creation, communication, innovation. We are buying that Google will continue to put out the most innovative suite of tools.

This means that their tools will come, evolve, reinvent, and go. This means we will be in a constant state of evolution, never landing. It is when that changes that I’ll consider whether Google is still good to stand with as a partner.

Lorraine Twohill at Google speaks to this when she talks about how they are never satisfied, never settling for the status quo. Instead, they ask:

“Why? Why are the things the way they are? Why can’t we change them?… the truth is, it’s too easy to say ‘no’ all the time. It’s too easy to be cautious. Pushing the boundaries of creativity means saying ‘yes’, taking risks, trying new things, learning, and being surprised”.

Isn’t this what we want our students and teachers to live? Isn’t this what we want to model? Isn’t this the experiences that will help foster the innovative disposition and the needed skills for such living?

That is why going with Google is right for schools that want to walk the talk of innovation, risk-taking, creativity, growth-mindset, adaptive thinking, and entrepreneurial, philanthropic mindsets.

Yea, I’m in on that…

But I’m glad it happened because the two aforementioned events unintentionally crossed paths with the messages delivered by the keynote speakers: Mike Leonard and Cristin Frodella.

And let me say this… these were easily the two best keynotes I’ve seen in my career.

Both spoke directly to the importance of exploring your interests and finding your passion. Not in the sense of a career but in terms of living a life of passion and meaning.

Passion

Leonard talked about it from looking your destination as the sun on the horizon instead of a single, small spot on a map. For young and old alike, this idea that our destination is a single point on a map is so limiting, so stressful.

Frodella tied this idea of passion and innovation to Google’s 20% mindset. This life of engagement, living in meaningful and hyper-personal work is at the core. And, it brings others together to grow something beautiful.

Their ideas force me to wonder how are we crafting experiences that lead our students in this direction. How are we honoring and igniting passions in our schools?

Risk-Taking

And they both spoke directly and indirectly about risk-taking.

Frodella spoke about the power of getting “our students to be unafraid to explore and fail”. And this is an issue. Life has programmed our youth to find the path of least resistance, the path that gets to a singular point in the most efficient way, and the path that has the most likely chance of success.

And this path is too often taken at the expense of going beyond the ordinary and doing something extraordinary.

And this is where a single idea from Leonard stopped me cold.

Create Don’t Compete

How many of us are so afraid of taking risks and failing that we put all of our energy in trying to fit into a mold? In other words, we work towards the standards that define our position, our titles, and our job descriptions. We compete with the ideal person that has been held up as the model example.

What we should do is create a new model.  As Leonard said, “Create don’t compete”.

Awesome! In a world of standardizations and boiler plate expectations, we sacrifice the power of what could be if we “created instead of competed”.

I’m not doing either justice but they both left me excited about the path we continue to shape at GBN. In fact, I was as giddy as a kid in a candy shop when Cristin shared Spartans Connect as part of her keynote. The work GBN is doing in this area deserves the recognition for pushing for what really matters: passions, connections, happiness, and engagement.

- Low-Tech Introduction to Google+
- Six Learning Experience

1. Connecting to Ideas and Information
2. Writing to Learn Strategies
3. Creating and Sharing
4. Discussion Strategies
5. Efficiency Strategies
6. Connecting to People

Also, I’ll be presenting “Exploring the Learning Possibilities of Google+ Communities” at the Illinois Google Summit using the above resources.

Session Description: This session engages participants in a low-tech approach to introducing the basics of Google+. From there, we will shift our focus t0 the learning and teaching possibilities of Google+ communities. Participants will explore six learning experiences afforded by Google+ communities and leave with structures to begin implementing the next day either in the classroom or as a professional development facilitator. This session will not specifically focus on aspects of District policy.

Our discussions surrounding the use of Google+ in the classroom have centered on the following six possibilities within a Private, “request an Invite” Community.

1. Connecting to Ideas and Information
2. Writing to Learn Strategies
3. Creating and Sharing
4. Discussion Strategies
5. Efficiency Strategies
6. Connecting to People

In looking at each of these, we continue to frame our discussions around key questions:

1. Does it make things easier or more efficient?
2. Does it alter/enhance something previously done?
3. Does it allow for something new?
4. Does it solve a problem?
5. Does it foster creating and making?

Connecting to People

One of the tenants of Connected Learning is the idea of networks. Google+ serve as strong platforms for networking locally and globally. This allows for learners to be exposed to diverse perspectives and audiences in a way that pushes their ideas.

As Stephen Johnson argues, “Chance favors the connected mind”. When we place an emphasis not only on connecting students to ideas but also to people, we are fostering that connected mind.

Google+ provides a number of ways to foster this level of connection:

• Communities
• Hangouts
• Events

Sample Connecting to People with Google+

Google Hangouts are probably one of the most obvious ways to leverage Google+ to Connect to People.  This has been well-documented by a variety of thoughtful people such as Andrew Marcinek‘s Google Hangouts Connecting, Sharing, and Learning or Best Practices for Google Hangouts.

One of the ways I’d love to see Google+ Hangouts used is by leveraging it for professional reviews of student work. Because Hangouts allow you to view YouTube videos and Google Drive docs with others, this provides a tremendous opportunity for students to garner feedback on their work from anyone in the world.

• Students design a prototype solution to a problem
• Their design is documented as a video, slide show, or document
• Students must find and connect with an expert in the area they are exploring
• Students setup a Feedback Hangout with this “expert” and share their work in the Hangout.
• This Feedback Hangout is recorded and shared in the Community.
• Students adjust their work based upon the feedback and either a) pitch again (perhaps with a new person) or b) submit their work.

I used to have Writing Partners setup this way for my students. Each student was connected with a college student and this exchange occurred asynchronously via email. While valuable, I would love to do this today via Hangouts with a Google Doc opened.

What an entirely different experience!?